They just announced this name on cnn, he is from newtown ,ct. Take a look at the last picture he left .....[Edited. I agree with your sentiment, but we don't allow swearing (or references to swearing -- on CelticsBlog. Thanks. -RH]

I wonder, if the Constitution was amended to allow gun ownership to be regulated at the state level, with no Congressional oversight except as related to Federal land, would that satisfy anybody?

If D.C. wants to outlaw guns, and Montana wants to allow open carry, is there a reason they shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for their citizens?

Yes. Because if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then Montana can not decide what is best for their citizens. Also, allowing states to regulate it means people can just cross state lines, buy their guns there and return home with their guns. It solves nothing.

I wonder, if the Constitution was amended to allow gun ownership to be regulated at the state level, with no Congressional oversight except as related to Federal land, would that satisfy anybody?

If D.C. wants to outlaw guns, and Montana wants to allow open carry, is there a reason they shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for their citizens?

Yes. Because if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then Montana can not decide what is best for their citizens. Also, allowing states to regulate it means people can just cross state lines, buy their guns there and return home with their guns. It solves nothing.

I disagree. I think citizens should be able to make up their own mind what's best for their community. That applies to just about everything, including guns.

If one community wants to allow guns because they value hunting and self-defense, I think that's a reasonable solution. If another wishes to completely restrict guns due to fears of violence, I think that's equally reasonable. Both are debatable, which probably means that there isn't a top-down solution that is going to work for every community.

I wonder, if the Constitution was amended to allow gun ownership to be regulated at the state level, with no Congressional oversight except as related to Federal land, would that satisfy anybody?

If D.C. wants to outlaw guns, and Montana wants to allow open carry, is there a reason they shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for their citizens?

Yes. Because if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then Montana can not decide what is best for their citizens. Also, allowing states to regulate it means people can just cross state lines, buy their guns there and return home with their guns. It solves nothing.

I disagree. I think citizens should be able to make up their own mind what's best for their community. That applies to just about everything, including guns.

If one community wants to allow guns because they value hunting and self-defense, I think that's a reasonable solution. If another wishes to completely restrict guns due to fears of violence, I think that's equally reasonable. Both are debatable, which probably means that there isn't a top-down solution that is going to work for every community.

So if communities want to decide to legalize cocaine they should be able to? If communities want to legalize having sex with children they should be allowed? So if communities want to bring back slavery they should be allowed because after all they know what's best for their community?

They just announced this name on cnn, he is from newtown ,ct. Take a look at the last picture he left .....

Cowardwhich one, the one in all black?

yea and look at the haunting comment underneath

Quote

Jonathan Russell Look like you're about to buy an Ale, but then paint a picture of it... very mixed... all good, though. Kinda like if Solid Snake was wearing a Neo trenchcoat. This can only turn out awesome.December 9 at 7:48am

I wonder, if the Constitution was amended to allow gun ownership to be regulated at the state level, with no Congressional oversight except as related to Federal land, would that satisfy anybody?

If D.C. wants to outlaw guns, and Montana wants to allow open carry, is there a reason they shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for their citizens?

Yes. Because if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then Montana can not decide what is best for their citizens. Also, allowing states to regulate it means people can just cross state lines, buy their guns there and return home with their guns. It solves nothing.

I disagree. I think citizens should be able to make up their own mind what's best for their community. That applies to just about everything, including guns.

If one community wants to allow guns because they value hunting and self-defense, I think that's a reasonable solution. If another wishes to completely restrict guns due to fears of violence, I think that's equally reasonable. Both are debatable, which probably means that there isn't a top-down solution that is going to work for every community.

So if communities want to decide to legalize cocaine they should be able to? If communities want to legalize having sex with children they should be allowed? So if communities want to bring back slavery they should be allowed because after all they know what's best for their community?

With cocaine, that's probably a states rights issue to me. I mean, MJ is, right? (Well, it is and it isn't.)

Laws allowing slavery and pedophilia would be specifically unconstitutional, as they violate the Constitutional rights of protected citizens.

Justice Brandeis (and quoted by Justice O'Connor) described the states as "laboratories of democracy", where different communities could experiment with different ideas. I agree with that sentiment.

I understand the outcry for gun control, especially with how easy it is for the mentally ill to get a gun. However, keep in mind that the worst school killing in our country's history was done with a bomb. Crazy people will always find a way to harm others, unfortunately.

I'd rather they at least have to work for it than have their weapons come pre-assembled.

Can I ask a serious question, not trying to troll one bit, but I've yet to get a straight answer to this.

What makes people think it will be that much harder for a person committed to violence to obtain a gun if they get outlawed?

How's that working out for drugs? other illegal chemicals used in the construction of homemade bombs?

Maybe I'm just cynical, but to me, if your enough of a complete psychopath that you've decided to go to a school and murder children, obtaining a gun on what is SURE to be a thriving black market for will not really be a huge hindrance.

I'm all for Gun control, but to me outlawing firearms will do nothing but assure a thriving black market for their sale.

That aside, my heart goes out to these parents, absolute sickening news. If this is what our society has come to, maybe the myans have it right.

Because right away there will be a thriving black market but 25 years from now it will be exponentially harder to get those weapons and 50 years from now exponentially more difficult to get a weapon.

Sooner or later with guns being removed as criminals get caught, the supply will dwindle and the guns will be almost impossible to get.

I disagree. There will always be a way to get what you want, whether it's drugs, chemicals, illicit sex, or guns or some other type of weapon. And that does nothing to address mental illness or the depraved human condition, which is the cause of most crime. I grew up in a rural area in a hunting culture, in a house that had, at any given time, 5-10 guns of varying types, and there was never any incident like this in my community. Why? Because no one in my family or our neighborhood was loony or depraved enough. Excessive gun control is treating the symptom, not the root cause. I wish there could be no incidents like these, but I think there always will be, no matter what. Let me be clear, though: I'm not saying we should do nothing in response to a situation like this. I just don't think that stripping the general citizenry of the ability to self-defend is the answer. I also think it's a bad idea to have the "authorities" (government) in control of all weapons, because citizens would then be subject to the possibility of complete government tyranny.

Logged

"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

I wonder, if the Constitution was amended to allow gun ownership to be regulated at the state level, with no Congressional oversight except as related to Federal land, would that satisfy anybody?

If D.C. wants to outlaw guns, and Montana wants to allow open carry, is there a reason they shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for their citizens?

Yes. Because if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then Montana can not decide what is best for their citizens. Also, allowing states to regulate it means people can just cross state lines, buy their guns there and return home with their guns. It solves nothing.

I disagree. I think citizens should be able to make up their own mind what's best for their community. That applies to just about everything, including guns.

If one community wants to allow guns because they value hunting and self-defense, I think that's a reasonable solution. If another wishes to completely restrict guns due to fears of violence, I think that's equally reasonable. Both are debatable, which probably means that there isn't a top-down solution that is going to work for every community.

So if communities want to decide to legalize cocaine they should be able to? If communities want to legalize having sex with children they should be allowed? So if communities want to bring back slavery they should be allowed because after all they know what's best for their community?

With cocaine, that's probably a states rights issue to me. I mean, MJ is, right? (Well, it is and it isn't.)

Laws allowing slavery and pedophilia would be specifically unconstitutional, as they violate the Constitutional rights of protected citizens.

Point being is sometimes the law of the land has to protect people from themselves and that's why in certain cases states and communities shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for them because it could cause harm to Americans elsewhere.

If one community wants to allow guns because they value hunting and self-defense, I think that's a reasonable solution. If another wishes to completely restrict guns due to fears of violence, I think that's equally reasonable. Both are debatable, which probably means that there isn't a top-down solution that is going to work for every community.

States as a breaking point is pretty arbitrary. This would work better for Rhode Island than it would for California. Never mind that you have open borders everywhere, so you can't keep gun out of the places where they are banned.

Point being is sometimes the law of the land has to protect people from themselves and that's why in certain cases states and communities shouldn't be allowed to decide what is best for them because it could cause harm to Americans elsewhere.

The law of the land shouldn't be to protect Montana from itself, though. The Tenth Amendment reserves a ton of autonomy to the States, and trusts them to do what's best for the people.

My guess is that on different social issues, you're fine with States taking the lead in determining policy, rather than leaving it up to the Federal government to get it right. In general, people in Alabama shouldn't be telling those in Vermont how to live their life. I think it's the same thinking here.

This is just sad. Sick. Disgusting. There are so many words and thoughts going through my brain. Its terrible.

Also scary. I am currently at my middle/high school, father works in an elementary school, and girlfriend is studying to become and elementary teacher as well. Am I any safer than a police officer at this point in our lives.

If one community wants to allow guns because they value hunting and self-defense, I think that's a reasonable solution. If another wishes to completely restrict guns due to fears of violence, I think that's equally reasonable. Both are debatable, which probably means that there isn't a top-down solution that is going to work for every community.

States as a breaking point is pretty arbitrary. This would work better for Rhode Island than it would for California. Never mind that you have open borders everywhere, so you can't keep gun out of the places where they are banned.

Arbitrary as in constitutionally framed by the Tenth Amendment. The Founders left a ton of powers to the States, not me.

I'm okay with amending the Constitution to leave this issue to the States, like so many issues. I don't want Congress touching it on a nationwide level, though, under the view that Congress is at its core corrupt, inefficient, and unaccountable.